Judge clears way for disciplinary proceedings against Trump ally Jeffrey Clark

A federal judge has cleared the way for District of Columbia Bar authorities to resume long-stalled disciplinary proceedings against Jeffrey Clark, a top ally in Donald Trump’s bid to undermine the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Clark, an assistant attorney general in Trump’s Justice Department — whom Trump considered naming acting attorney general amid his final, frenzied bid to remain in power — had tied up those proceedings for nearly eight months as he sought to transfer the battle to federal court.

But U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras rejected Clark’s effort on Thursday, issuing a 36-page opinion concluding that federal courts have no jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings meant to be managed by the D.C. Bar and local courts.

D.C. Bar authorities charged Clark in July 2022 with engaging in “dishonest” conduct and seeking to “seriously interfere with the administration of justice” when he embarked on a weekslong effort to help Trump sow doubt about the results of the 2020 election.

In the weeks before Trump left office, Clark — then the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division — spearheaded the drafting of a letter urging state governments in states won by Joe Biden to consider convening their legislatures and revisiting the results of the election. He leaned on Justice Department leaders to send the letter but was repeatedly rebuffed.

But Clark continued pressing to issue the letter and, with the help of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), caught the attention of Trump, who was prepared to make Clark the acting attorney general in early January 2021 — until a mass resignation threat by senior Justice Department officials caused him to reverse his decision. Clark’s involvement in the episode has drawn intense scrutiny from federal prosecutors, who raided his home a year ago, and the Jan. 6 select committee, which highlighted Clark’s role in Trump’s bid to subvert the election during its public hearings.

In his legal filings, Clark contended that the D.C. Bar proceedings — which could result in his suspension or disbarment from law practice in Washington — are improper to bring against someone who worked as an attorney in the federal government. The District of Columbia, Clark contended, was specifically exempted from federal laws granting states the authority over bar discipline.

But Contreras sharply rejected Clark’s assessment of the history of these laws.

“To accept Mr. Clark’s position would be to subscribe to the absurd proposition that Congress chose to make these officials subject to jurisdictional rules of professional conduct everywhere except where they work.” he argued. “That D.C. is home to, by far, the most government lawyers in the country only compounds this absurdity.”

Contreras’ ruling could kickstart a proceeding that has been used against other officials connected to Trump’s bid to stay in power. D.C. Bar authorities temporarily suspended Rudy Giuliani’s law license after two weeks of proceedings there and are due to make a final determination on his potential disbarment imminently. California Bar authorities are preparing to try John Eastman, an architect of Trump’s bid to derail the transfer of power, over the next few weeks.

But Clark has so far successfully stymied D.C. Bar investigators’ bid to advance their inquiry since filing suit in October.

In his ruling, Contreras noted that the federal law itself, which was amended in 1998, was rooted, in part, in Democrats’ concerns about the conduct of then-Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his investigation of then-President Bill Clinton.

“This context, including broad upset among President Clinton’s supporters over a perception of prosecutorial overreach, affected Congress’s consideration,” Contreras noted. Congress added the independent counsel to the jurisdiction of the D.C. Bar authorities, which Contreras said underscored the fact that Congress intended those provisions to apply to lawyers working for the federal government.

Clark, in his filings, also argue that D.C. Bar proceedings have features of both civil and criminal proceedings that can be legally redirected to federal court. But Contreras rejected that view, as well, saying bar discipline proceedings are neither civil nor criminal and therefore not subject to the laws that provide for transferring cases out of the states.